Comments about ‘Child safety is state's duty’

Yes we should be a nanny state. I can think of a lot of things the state should protect us from.They should outlaw junk food, cigarettes,soda and guns. Force everybody to do what is right, I think I rejected than plan before. Take a look at the statistics, booster seats do not have a better record than seat belts do.

Why is there a picture of an infant seat attached to this story? The proposed law is about booster seats, they're two different things.

"More than half of all motor vehicle accidents occur within a five-mile radius of home."

I'm moving!

I spent 30+ years as an emergency med tech with volunteer ambulance services. I wish we could somehow force our legislators to ride a busy ambulance for a while. The cries of injured people, the anguish of a parent who has just seen their child maimed or killed, the smell of blood and intestinal contents, the necessity to crawl into a tight dangerous space to try to keep someone from bleeding out --- some of that might get their attention.

I remember particularly one Thanksgiving day when we responded to a two-car head-on. Both cars were running about 30 mph when they hit black ice less than a mile from the home of one of them. Two four-year old boys died that afternoon. Both of them sitting on grandmothers' laps. One grandmother was unrestrained and crushed the boy between her and the dashboard. The other grandmother had the safety belt around both of them. That little guy was cut almost completely in half. Or how about the three-year old girl whose brain was shattered when she hit the dashboard at about 15 to 20 mph in a supermarket parking lot? She's a vegetable now.

So, by that reasoning, we should not have laws protecting children from being beaten by their parents either, right?

I'm disappointed in the DNews siding with the nanny/police state advocates. The only thing wrong with the bill is that it doesn't abolish these silly rules altogether.

It reminds me of the chilling Superbowl ad featuring the "Green Police". Are we going to have checkpoints where the "Safety Police" inspect us to make sure we're not doing anything unhealthy or unsafe?

CB- if you care so much about doing what's right as you indicated, then you should have no problem with a law that's already instated and wouldn't affect you, but does encourage those who are too lazy and put their convenience above the safety of your children. I think HB113 is just insane and a law for lazy people who don't want to be bothered by small things - like the life of your child.

I think it's insane that this is even being brought up, let alone supported. When you say that this is a good law- you're usually hiding behind "don't over-regulate me!", but sorry folks. There has to be some laws for us to live in a civilized society, and at the heart of the good laws are ones that protect us and especially those who can't choose for themselves.

Visit an ER sometime and talk to the doctors. Ask them about the tiny heads and spines crushed and mangled because idiot adults decided proper car restraints were too much of a hassle. Protecting these helpless little ones who can't choose to protect themselves is NOT the same as a "nanny state" protecting a fat old man from his cigarettes and junk food. He can rot by choice for all I care.

"Child safety is state's duty"

Actually, child safety is the parents' duty.

Overall, the idea of this policy is good, but it's not perfect. (Neither the original law nor proposed change is perfect, but both have merits)

Child safety is state's duty ?. Deseret News radical feminist editorial ?. (and I now quote:) "When it comes to the safety of children, the law should err on protecting their lives and their interests ?." Just what LIBERAL wrote this?. It's up to THE FAMILY to protect their OWN kid's, not the Government. That's how its been since Adam and Eve, and needs to stay right there. NOT what some feminist says.

If you are a law-abiding, property-owning, middle-class person and do not send your children to the local public schools, state and local government is simply a bad deal for you. Perhaps it's time to get back to Home Schooling also again. There are few regular benefits you get in return for all the taxes you regularly pay. Yes, it is true that you get a police and fire department and these are worth paying taxes for even if you never directly need them to protect you and your family from a criminal or a fire. Arresting criminals and putting out fires are public goods, and local government provides a public service when it does them just as the federal government provides a public service when it, say, stops terrorists from boarding U.S.-bound flights. How could such smart people do so many stupid things? That question, or variations on it, is being asked in Washington and around the country about the Obama administration.

I notice the article states that they should have to be in a booster seat until "age 8." Why not 9? Why not 7?

Everyone wants the children to be safe, but obviously there is some subjectivity to the issue. So let's stop with the demonizing of people that believe it's reasonable for a six-year-old to use seat-belt in the back seat, while going a few blocks at neighborhood speeds. It's a whole lot safer than the kid WALKING that distance, I guarantee.

"Child safety is state's duty"

Totally wrong.

Child safety is the parents' responsibility not the states. The state has illegally usurped that authority.

The real safety for all children on the highway is for the parent (and all other drivers) to drive no more than the speed limit.

@@cb10:21a.m.:

"Visit an ER sometime and talk to the doctors. Ask them about the tiny heads and spines crushed and mangled because idiot adults decided proper car restraints were too much of a hassle..."

The question is not about using restraints but about requiring same by law.

Any parent who does not use restraints on children in a moving vehicle, children of any age, is crazy.

The reason that there is a governmental interest at stake is that the government (Taxpayers)pay for medical care for the injured/disabled. If the governement would get out of the forced charity business, then people could live their lives taking whatever risks they wanted, but have to live with the consequences themselves instead of pawning the responsibility off on the taxpayers.

If the legislator wants to dump the law about booster seats, dump the associated health care costs as well.

As a first time mother I think that the state has done what it needs to as far as safety is concerned. I believe full heartidly that safety should be THE PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY. If you don't want responsibility than why did you become a parent in the first place?

@Kimberley2:47p.m.:

["If you don't want responsibility than why did you become a parent in the first place?"]

Accidents happen, don't you know?

Well, being a first time mother just makes you the expert, doesn't it?

Yes, it is the parent's responsibility. But let's suppose that someday when your little Johnny or Suzy is in an accident w/ another parent or a relative whom you trust completely and suppose to be responsible. Turns out that this person isn't quite as vigilant as you about vehicle safety and, without a law to prod him/her to use the safety seat, doesn't bother to do so. When your child is dead or seriously injured, you can say "It was the parents' responsibility" until the cows come home - but which parent -you, or the driver?? Either way, those words are not going to restore your child, and, without the law, you'll have no legal recourse against the driver for not securing your child as you would have.

@toKinberley4:17p.m.:

["Turns out that this person isn't quite as vigilant as you about vehicle safety and, without a law to prod him/her to use the safety seat, doesn't bother to do so."]

If the person isn't "quite as vigilant as you" he/she probably would ignore the safety seat regardless of the law.

If you are truly interested in your child's health and well-being you would encourage the government to pass laws to dictate your child's diet and exercise habits. That's where the read damage comes from for today's children... not auto accidents.

I noticed that nobody refuted that booster seats are no more effective than seat belts, because that is a fact. You should be very careful when you try to regulate behavior with laws. Eventually those laws will limit your behavior. I will force them to do good, everybody of earth has already rejected than plan once.